The deep-seated issue that explains West Ham’s worrying decline | OneFootball

“You can write what you want, at any time,” Graham Potter said, when asked if this is already a relegation battle. He admitted he “knows his responsibilities” when asked about his future.

From that, you could of course write at least some of the good from this 5-1 - like Joao Pedro’s supreme impact and how Chelsea might have now started a proper challenge.

Except, it’s impossible not to get away from the bad. And this was very bad from West Ham United, to the point that Potter looks in immediate danger. Might he even be gone before Nuno Espirito Santo? Could the Nottingham Forest manager replace him, given issues there?

West Ham certainly need basic defensive organisation. “You can’t concede goals like we did,” Potter said, as he referred to a second “smash on the mouth” after the opening weekend’s 3-0 defeat at Sunderland.

Here, the utter poverty of West Ham’s performance felt far more influential than Chelsea’s quality.

They were fortunate it wasn’t so much worse, since the “match” was essentially over as any kind of contest by the 33rd minute. That was the moment of Enzo Fernandez’s easy third, which was when many fans first started streaming out. Their absence was perhaps the only reason boos were not so loud by the end.

You could understand them. For everything to be this dismal just two games into a new season is almost cruel.

It wasn’t just how bad West Ham were, either. It was how many ways they found to be bad.

They were bad at set-pieces. Three of the goals came through that route.

They were bad in the air. Joao Pedro’s first was a header, and two other goals came from deliveries at corners.

They were bad at basic defending. All five of the goals came from just yards out, in a way that just shouldn’t happen at Premier League level.

They were bad on the ground. Basic passing often eluded them, most conspicuously seen in the build-up for Pedro Neto’s goal, as three different West Ham players lost the ball.

open image in gallery

Lucas Paqueta’s brilliant early strike proved a false dawn for the hopes (AP)

They were bad in the challenge. There were so many duels when a West Ham player was just muscled off the ball.

They were bad in goal. It was hard not to have considerable sympathy for Mads Hermansen, who endured ironic cheers as he finally saved an Estevao effort in the 72nd minute.

Because, of course, this isn’t really about the players. They’ve been thrown together in a situation that has been on the decline for some time, a multitude of different problems that are now crashing together at once.

Hence West Ham’s defenders almost crashing into each other in the box, as Chelsea worked another few passes for an easy opening.

They were also bad tactically. Potter’s approach didn’t make sense for the players he had. They were so slow in midfield, to the point Chelsea utterly dominated the area. In front, Niclas Fullkrug was completely isolated. Behind, it was the opposite problem, as an extra centre-half ensured none of them seemed to know where to go.

open image in gallery

Five different players scored for Chelsea as they underlined their title credentials (Getty Images)

As early as the first goal, they were somehow allowing Chelsea two free headers in their own six-yard box. Again, the kind of problems that should be impossible at this level.

Such disconnect of course points to a deeper issue.

While there is a growing will to criticise Potter as a manager, and that is possibly a debate worth having, it’s also a blunt reality that he just doesn’t look a fit for this club.

There is at least an argument that Potter works best in a “progressive” structure. In other words, Brighton: a club that gears all data-led recruitment to a modern way of playing, where the manager himself fits in with the ideology.

West Ham are not that.

But the thing with West Ham is that, as dysfunctional as they can be, certain managers can still make it work. They can work well with someone who has a bit of edge and get his teams to dig in.

open image in gallery

Chelsea were cruising just half an hour in (Getty Images)

Instead, Potter has always radiated that “high performance culture” outlook at a club that looks like the last to ever be interested in that.

“Performance” would of course just be a start. It was actually hard to square Lucas Paqueta’s brilliant - and emotionally resonant - opening goal with the rest of this match. Did it really come in the same game? Were West Ham actually briefly ahead? Really?

Chelsea ensured that was irrelevant. This was really the perfect match for a team still adapting to the disrupted Club World Cup-shaped pre-season, and who were here missing Cole Palmer through a slight groin injury.

They could easily get up to speed. There were many pluses for Chelsea through that, from Joao Pedro’s brilliance to Neto’s rising influence. The Brazilian scored once and set up another two goals, with Neto often scorching West Ham. Estevao Willian finally had an arrival moment with the pass for Fernandez’s strike - of course from close range. Moises Caicedo and Trevoh Chalobah then enjoyed the confidence boosts that come from relatively rare goals.

Except, all of this has to be put in the context of how bad West Ham were. They look far worse than any of the promoted teams, as Sunderland signalled last week.

The wonder is how bad this can really get. Or how bad it will be allowed to get.